Berkeley Journal of Religion and Theology Volume 4, Issue 1 ISSN 2380-7458 “Without Evidence … But Not Groundless”: The Scientific Basis of Christian Apologetics Author(s): Camilo Peralta Source: Berkeley Journal of Religion and Theology 4, no. 1 (2018): 74-98. Published By: Graduate Theological Union © 2018 Online article published on: August 1, 2018 Copyright Notice: This file and its contents is copyright of the Graduate Theological Union © 2018. All rights reserved. Your use of the Archives of the Berkeley Journal of Religion and Theology (BJRT) indicates your acceptance of the BJRT’s policy regarding use of its resources, as discussed below. Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited with the following exceptions: Ø You may download and print to a local hard disk this entire article for your personal and non-commercial use only. Ø You may quote short sections of this article in other publications with the proper citations and attributions. Ø Permission has been obtained from the Journal’s management for exceptions to redistribution or reproduction. A written and signed letter from the Journal must be secured expressing this permission. To obtain permissions for exceptions, or to contact the Journal regarding any questions regarding further use of this article, please e-mail the managing editor at [email protected] The Berkeley Journal of Religion and Theology aims to offer its scholarly contributions free to the community in furtherance of the Graduate Theological Union’s scholarly mission. “Without Evidence … But Not Groundless”: The Scientific Basis of Christian Apologetics Camilo Peralta Independence Community College Independence, Kansas, U.S.A. ABSTRACT: Atheism has never been hotter than in the present day. Frequent appearances on national media by well-known atheists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens have helped their brand of militant skepticism take root in the popular consciousness. A frequent criticism offered by these individuals is that Christian apologetics, the field tasked with defending religious faith in a rational manner, hasn’t changed much in the 2000 years since it was first practiced. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as I intend to demonstrate by exploring how some of its major proofs or arguments have evolved throughout the centuries. With every new advance in scientific method or understanding, from the scholasticism of the Middle Ages to the rise of quantum mechanics in the 20th century, Christian apologists have refined their arguments to reflect our changing understanding of the world. Despite the popular impression of it as an irrational and outdated field, there is, and has always been, a firm scientific basis behind the practice of Christian apologetics. Berkeley Journal of Religion and Theology, Vol. 4, No. 1 © Graduate Theological Union, 2018 The death of C. S. Lewis in 1963 marked the loss of a beloved author and literary critic. His death was most keenly felt, perhaps, in the field of Christian apologetics, which lost one of its most eloquent and gifted defenders of the faith. Tony Richie, a pastor and adjunct professor at the Church of God Theological Seminary in Cleveland, Tennessee, cites the “ever-increasing influence” of Lewis’s books and movies in the present day, noting that he is “also well-liked by serious apologetics and theologians 74 around the world.”1 Few of his successors would command the level of popular success and broad appeal which Lewis enjoyed. Since the turn of the century, the problem has only gotten worse, as most of the public’s attention has been captured by prominent atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins. As Christian apologetics disappeared from the airwaves and best-seller lists across the nation, these men and their denials of God have found an increasingly receptive audience. “You have to go all the way back to late-Victorian scoffers like Robert Ingersoll and Mark Twain,” Ross Douthat notes in the Atlantic, “to find a moment when celebrity skeptics enjoyed the sort of mass-market success that ours [including Hitchens and Dawkins] are enjoying in America today.”2 Nowhere is this success more evident than with television, on which all of the skeptics mentioned above have made numerous, widely- disseminated appearances. In a recent interview with CBS Sunday Morning, for example, Tyson explained that he doubted the existence of God because he could not reconcile the idea of an “all-powerful and all-good” creator with the many “disasters” that afflict life on earth: “If there is a God,” he says, “God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.”3 During an appearance on Swedish television in 2015, Dawkins critiqued a variety of proofs that have been given for God’s existence over the centuries, including the argument from first cause, which he claims “shoots itself in the foot because if you’re going to postulate a God as a first cause you’ve got a really big problem explaining where the God came from.”4 Atheists like Tyson and Dawkins would like their viewers to believe that faith and science are mutually exclusive; one can either be a Christian or an atheist, but only the latter, they would argue, can properly claim the mantle of scientist. “Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago,” Hitchens writes, dismissing apologetics for having to bear an “appalling load of strain” to make itself seem credible.5 1 Tony Richie, “Hints from Heaven: Can C. S. Lewis Help Evangelicals Hear God in Other Religions?” Evangelical Review of Theology 32, no. 1 (January 2008): 38. 2 Ross Douthat, “Mass-Market Atheism,” Atlantic 302, no. 1 (July 2008): 79. 3 Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Neil de Grasse Tyson on God,” interview by Martha Teichner, CBS Sunday Morning, CBS, 30 April 2017, video, 2:15, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0nXG02tpDw. 4 Richard Dawkins, “What are the five best reasons why there is no god,” Skavlan, 3 December 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyYPPTcoCiU. 75 What Hitchens, his fellow atheists, and their supporters seem eager to overlook is the fact that, historically, Christian apologists have had little trouble reconciling their belief in God with modern science. They belong to a long-established field founded upon the rational articulation and defense of faith.6 Indeed, some of the most influential apologists in history are better known today for their contributions to science. Copernicus, Isaac Newton, and René Descartes all had a significant impact upon scientific practice and knowledge, yet regarded themselves primarily as men “of deep religious faith,”7 who dedicated their experiments and inquiries to the greater glory of God. Far from shrinking before theories and discoveries that might undermine their beliefs, Christian apologists have always demonstrated a willingness to confront such challenges head-on. This would seem to belie the criticism (as expressed by at least one prominent atheist) that they can only offer “the same old arguments” for God’s existence.8 In this paper, I would like to explore the scientific basis for Christian apologetics, focusing on how various arguments or proofs in favor of God’s existence have been modified in response to major changes in how science has been understood and practiced since antiquity. Even as our knowledge of the world around us continues to evolve, so, too, has each of these proofs undergone continuous, reciprocal refinement. The first major proof is known as the cosmological argument, and is predicated upon the notion of a “First Mover,” who is responsible for instigating motion throughout the rest of the universe. It was articulated by the ancient Greeks before being adopted by medieval Christian theologians. The second proof, known as the ontological argument, emphasizes the use of deductive reasoning, and was raised by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Significant contributions to it were made during the Age of Enlightenment and by modern-day philosophers and logicians. The third proof, known as the 5 Christopher Hitchens, “God is Not Great,” Slate, 25 April 2007, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/features/2007/god_is_not_great /religion_poisons_everything.html. 6 Jeremiah Gibbs and Jason Byassee, “Explain yourself: Making belief intelligible,” Christian Century 125, no. 19 (September 2008): 26. 7 Edmund Little, “Galileo, science and the Church,” Stimulus: The New Zealand Journal of Christian Thought & Practice 18, no. 3 (August 2010): 31. 8 Victor Stenger, “How to Debate a Christian Apologist,” Huffpost, 28 February 2014, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/how-to-debate-religion_b_4876997.html. 76 teleological argument, posits that the universe exhibits irrefutable evidence of having been designed by an intelligent being, rather than in a random manner. Some of the most exciting developments in contemporary Christian apologetics have been made by physicists and biologists working to refine the teleological proof. After tracing the historical development of these arguments, and showing how they have evolved in response to major advances and discoveries in science, I would like to contrast them with a few of the objections typically offered by contemporary atheists such as Tyson, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Comparatively, these demonstrate far less innovation, being largely derivative of points already made and debated ad nauseum. The question raised by Tyson during his interview with CBS Sunday Morning, for instance, about how a just God could allow the good to suffer, is essentially identical to the original inquiry into the “Problem of Evil” made by the Greek philosopher Epicurus in the 3rd century B.C. (Possible responses to it are even older, dating back to the 7th - 5th century Book of Job, at least.)9 Likewise, if Dawkins were more familiar with Aristotle, he might have realized that the great philosopher has already offered a perfectly sensible solution to the apparent problem of where his “First Mover” might have come from.